i have to agree with the comments by kaihui; some of these photographers wasted alot of money; shooting the way they shoot. they could have used a canon 10d or a point and shoot. come on, lets get real...if you are going to spend mega dollars on gear, lets see some mega photography!

I had EOS 5D previously. Since the beginning of 2008, I have EOS 1DS mark III. Admittedly, it is expensive!!! But device is splendid, superb work tools related to a quality of construction.
I am really content. Being follower of the full frame that to ask moreover

wish some of those IDS III owners know how to shoot. I have not seen a single photo taken by IDM III on PBASE that is outstanding, and can not be shot with Canon Digital Rebel (of course, except 21 mp)

Guest

23-Jun-2008 05:14

The camera' cost is always reasonable for people who needs it and bought it, perhaps not reasonable for those did not buy it, so it is more or less whether one needs it or not. 1Ds MK3 is not that much better than 1Ds MK2 which I previously use but it is indeed improvement over the MK2 in almost any area, I upgrade it not only because the increase in pixels count, but more on my 1Ds MK2 is getting aged, and I want a fresh machine to be more accountable, even though my 1Ds MK2 did not fail me but it is like good old car, even it is still running well, no car design to run forever. The image quality has more to do with the print output, the 1Ds MK3 compares well against middle range medium format digital back, when the print is smaller, but you will see the difference when the print size goes bigger, but for many professional whose carrier depend on producing high quality images, 1Ds MK3 is indeed a very useful and cost effective tool.

I think many of you are oblivious to the target market of this camera. The target market isn't worried about high iso performance compared to "detail". Price has been mentioned several times, however whether or not a camera is "priced" reasonably depends on the alternatives. The alternatives right now are digital backs which start at nearly $10k and don't offer near as much versatility, support, nor compatibility. This camera targets the photographer who wants to purchase a reasonable alternative to spending over $20,000 for a nice digital back/camera solution and an alternative to spending $2k-$3k per lens in the wide angle and portrait focal lengths. This camera targets the photographer who will be using the camera mostly at 100 iso, with artificial lighting indoors- or outdoors as fill (studio work, portraiture, architecture, interiors, etc..) *For THOSE photographers who want the capability of medium format, and the versatility of an SLR, AND availability of studio/portrait/wide angle lenses that cost a fraction of the same from Hasselblad, Sinar, etc., the Canon 1dsIII is cheap! and a great deal!

With the aforementioned in mind, the Canon 1dsIII is the absolute best camera on the market right now. *Whether or not people posting on Pbase use the camera to its potential is hardly relevant. *If most Ferrari owners can't drive like a professional, what on earth would cause any intelligent person to think that 1dsIII owners would automatically produce award winning photographs by default? ;)

Lots of money? well, depend on what kinda people been using it, if you are just showing off your gear and never wanted to know how to take a better picture, well, not worth it. I've seen some guys using 1ds mark iii from pbase, the pictures quality are far worst than I've ever seen in my entire life, if you are not doing this for hobby or making money from it, so why need camera for?

I shoot 3200 iso all the time with a 1ds mkii...particularly in clubs, and concerts where the flash just won't create the right atmosphere...shots are grainy sometimes, but can be pushed to larger sizes easily without a problem.

Lots of amazing images on display but also more than a few snap shots and crappy compare this with this etc. 6K on a camera one would expect a little more to be honest. Just shows it ain't all in the tools you need some talent too.

Lots of money for ????. The 21.1 mpix might be nice, but only in low iso ranges. It was not a secret that reducing the pixel size to 6.4microns would seriously reduce the ability to shoot at high iso ranges. The 3200 iso test-shots confirm this by tons of noise. But anyway, who needs 3200 iso. Today we are in this useless iso competition while we forget that there has never been any filmcamera making a good picture beyond 400 iso.
It would be nice to see the same test-shots with 200 and 400 iso to see what the camera realy does in normal conditions of use and without noise. Maybe one more reason why Nikon sticks to the resolution of the 5D on its new D3. I don't think that any camera maker is yet able to master the noise of such high pixeled chips at high iso ranges in what ever the size of the chip is. The noise encountered here is just as big as on a similar 10 or 12 mpix apsc or dx chip. So, maybe the future will bring us better results. In the mean time, reach over your $$$$.